Officials: Support of water plan right move

Friday

Aug 15, 2014 at 12:01 AM

Delta-area legislators defended their support of California's new $7.5 billion water bond proposal on Thursday amid tough criticism from some of their friends who believe the bond could be tied to Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed twin tunnels.

Alex Breitler

Delta-area legislators defended their support of California's new $7.5 billion water bond proposal on Thursday amid tough criticism from some of their friends who believe the bond could be tied to Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed twin tunnels.

Stockton-based Restore the Delta, in particular, blasted its allies at the state Capitol for ostensibly forcing taxpayers to buy Northern California water that critics argue could be shipped south through the tunnels.

"They (Delta legislators) voted for you and me to pay for water exports," Restore the Delta posted on Facebook. "Remember how they voted."

But the bond actually contains a number of new protections for the Delta, said state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who has long been one of the estuary's staunchest defenders at the state Capitol.

A collective $1.6 billion to clean up groundwater and build water recycling projects, for example, would help far-flung regions of California reduce their reliance on Delta water, Wolk said.

Within the Delta, the bond would forbid using any money to pay for the tunnels or to mitigate for their construction. It would pump $295 million into strengthening Delta levees and $50 million into funding a conservancy to support public and private wildlife projects.

The bond would require the conservancy to first consult with local cities and counties, and any land purchases would have to be from willing sellers only.

While the bond would allow for hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent boosting flows on rivers, those flows are "only" to help fish and the environment and would have to be above and beyond whatever flows would be required if the tunnels are built, Wolk said.

"My goal with this bond was doing no harm to the Delta and doing a whole lot of good in general, and I believe we've met that," Wolk said. "I'm hoping that when they (critics) see the language and they see the level of support, that they'll be more comfortable. Because the real fight (the tunnels) is in front of us, and we need allies and coalitions."

Wolk called the bond "neutral" on the tunnels, an adjective that many other Delta advocates are not willing to use.

Dante Nomellini, a Stockton attorney representing Delta farmers, said one provision would allow the state to pay for water for federal wildlife refuges, an obligation that he said would otherwise fall on those building the tunnels. That could make it easier to obtain permits to build them, he said.

Overall, the bond is a mixed bag, Nomellini said, though "definitely" better than its $11 billion predecessor, which was approved by legislators in 2009.

"I think our representatives worked hard," Nomellini said. "They were in a minority position. There was a lot of effort, and some of it helped improve it."

Former state Sen. Michael Machado of Linden said Delta legislators "represented us well to the extent they could under the circumstances." Machado, a leading water legislator in his time, knows well the behind-the-scenes politics of water bond negotiations.

"Is the bond something we can walk hand in hand with? No," he said. "Is it something you can turn your back on? No, because there's a lot of things in there that will benefit the Delta."

Others were more critical, particularly Restore the Delta and the Stockton-based California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.

The groups describe a simple scenario: The tunnels plan needs more fresh water if it's going to pencil out. The bond allows for public money to purchase water for upstream rivers. Once that water has flowed downstream toward the Delta and fulfilled its stated purpose, what's to prevent the tunnels from sucking it south?

"The tunnels won't fly if they can't get big public purchases of water," said Bill Jennings of the fish advocacy group. "There were a lot of arms twisted here. I think they (Delta legislators) saw the futility of opposing the bond and they went along with it."

Ultimately, Restore the Delta predicted that the November vote on the bond will be a referendum on the tunnels.

Said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, the group's director: "Thirty years from now, our words will be recognized as correct, because this will not solve California's water needs."

For its part, San Joaquin County was the only Delta county not on record supporting the bond, according to Wolk's office and the governor's office.

Despite the somewhat unusual rift within the Delta, Assemblywoman Susan Eggman, D-Stockton, said legislators and interest groups will continue to work together.

She praised groups like Restore the Delta, in fact, for laying the groundwork for the bond over the past several years.

"If all of that work hadn't happened, the Delta delegation would not have had the room to craft legislation that I think is historic in really protecting the Delta," Eggman said.

"People may not like this part or that part," added Eggman, who was involved for months in negotiations. "But if it passes, it doesn't hurt us. And as legislators, we all need to take a larger statewide perspective."

State Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton, praised the bond mostly for its $2.7 billion in new storage, saying the proposed Sites Reservoir in the Sacramento Valley would help alleviate some of the pressure on the Delta.

"I think the language is written in such a way that it gives very strong legal arguments for protecting the Delta," Galgiani said. "Does that mean that attorneys representing the Delta will never have to go to court? No, but I believe that they will have very strong standing."